Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A was allegedly scammed by a street vendor abroad who altered a card transaction from approximately £20 to £940 on his Monzo Flex card. Mr A requested MONZO recover the funds through chargeback or Section 75 claim, but MONZO declined both options citing insufficient evidence and the merchant's verbal price agreement. Mr A repeatedly submitted disputes with supporting documentation including fraud reports and witness statements, but MONZO maintained the evidence did not meet Mastercard's chargeback reason code requirements or Section 75 conditions. The ombudsman found MONZO fairly applied the applicable legal and scheme frameworks, though acknowledged service shortcomings, and upheld MONZO's £75 compensation offer as reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that MONZO fairly applied Mastercard's chargeback rules by considering various reason codes but determining that Mr A's evidence did not meet the requirements for any applicable code. The 'Transaction amount differs' reason code was excluded because it specifically excludes verbal price agreements, which applied here. For Section 75, the ombudsman found it reasonable for MONZO to question whether the requisite debtor-creditor-supplier agreement existed and whether financial limits were met, given the lack of evidence. Even if those conditions were satisfied, the limited documentary evidence made a successful Section 75 claim unlikely. MONZO had no obligation to raise a chargeback and there was no certainty the merchant would not defend it. The ombudsman acknowledged MONZO's service shortcomings in repeatedly asking Mr A to complete forms and raising expectations, but found the £75 compensation reasonable for these failings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website